1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Since the Plaintiff’s father purchased land indicated in the primary purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant land”) around 1984, the Plaintiff’s assertion had cultivated crops in the instant land and occupied the instant land in a peaceful and public manner with the intent to own the instant land by installing a grave. As such, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by prescription on December 31, 2004.

Since the land of this case is owned by the defendant as a non-owned real estate, it is sought to confirm that the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on prescription acquisition is preliminaryly owned by the plaintiff.

2. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for 20 years only with the descriptions and videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 12.

Therefore, on the premise that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case by prescription, the plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all without merit, and they are dismissed.